cphite wrote:Well, to be fair... what else were they going to do? They're required by professional ethics to defend their client to the full extent of their abilities, but there really wasn't any one argument they had that was really convincing. So they throw up all the arguments they have in the hopes that at least one juror bites on something.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been part of a deliberation in a jury room. And if I were swayed by half of the defense's arguments and the other 11 jurors were countering with both the prosecutions argument and the other half of the defense's argument, I think I would be disingenuous in holding out.
Seems to me that the argument is stronger without the mitigating circumstances. Play up just that Tsarnaev wants to be killed to fulfill his twisted anti-Islamic notions of jihad, imply as best you can that this would be picked up by extremist groups which would not contribute to national or global security, and remind the jury that any one of them can thwart that plan by guaranteeing that Tsarnaev dies forgotten and mentally broken of old age in a desolate pit of ahumanity. That seems like it would be tempting to a death-penalty cleared jury. And if it doesn't work, then Tsarnaev can appeal on the grounds that his incompetent lawyers failed to produce any mitigating circumstances at the trial.